Police Searches on the Parliamentary Estate - Committee on the Issue of Privilege Contents


Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers 380-399)

DR MALCOLM JACK, MS JACQY SHARPE, MR MICHAEL CARPENTER AND MS VERONICA DALY

9 NOVEMBER 2009

  Q380  Ann Coffey: No, we are discussing how the decision came to be made over a matter of privilege. That is separate from looking at how the management structure and the relationships in this place contributed to the decision that was actually made in this particular instance, though presumably it could be duplicated in various other decisions.

  Dr Jack: I have heard what you say. By the way, I hope I am not giving the impression that no lessons have been learnt because lessons have been learnt and the Speaker's protocol makes that pretty clear. What I was trying to say really is that this place is unique in the sense that privilege and indeed politics for that matter intervene into the running—

  Q381  Ann Coffey: That is not unique. You have that in every local authority in the land. Politicians are used to working with professional officers in every local authority in the land. I do not think the fact that Parliament is the institution should be used as an excuse for not having a proper management system.

  Dr Jack: No, I absolutely agree with you.

  Q382  Ann Coffey: It appears to me that to some extent this is how it has been used which is why it has been so very difficult over the years to get anything established in this place that has some degree of clarity about how it works.

  Dr Jack: No, I would not disagree with you of course.

  Q383  Chairman: If Parliament is sui generis, then is it not all the more necessary to ensure that you build in procedures which allow for the transfer of information and communication that Ann Coffey is talking about because of the special nature of this place and in particular the intervention of privilege?

  Mr Carpenter: I would like to draw your Committee's attention to the provision in the Speaker's protocol, paragraph 5, which addresses this situation and the problem in this case, though obviously you will have to hear from the Serjeant. The protocol does say "No Officer or other member of the staff of the House may undertake any duty of confidentiality which has the purpose or effect of preventing or impeding communication with these Officers". I submit that it is not so much a question of the management structure: it is a question of the duty of confidence that was assumed, that with hindsight should not have been imposed and should not have been accepted.

  Q384  Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Looking to the future, can you advise me whether, if at some future situation of this kind, if the Serjeant had a full discussion with the Speaker and there were not confusions between the Serjeant and the Speaker, which appears to have existed on this occasion, and the Speaker had given consent in this way, do you believe it is acceptable and wise for that to happen without the involvement of the Clerk of the House and Speaker's Counsel?

  Mr Carpenter: I am not sure whether I am being asked for my legal opinion.

  Q385  Sir Malcolm Rifkind: Maybe "wise" is the wrong word. Do you think that is a proper procedure for determining such important matters that the Clerk of the House might not even be involved or informed or consulted as long as the Serjeant at Arms has spoken directly to the Speaker?

  Mr Carpenter: It would be an unfortunate way of proceeding and I believe that the protocol serves to ensure that sort of thing does not happen because it lays stress on the number of people who must be brought into the loop, if I may put it that way; so there is a collective discussion, so no-one is operating within a cupboard of their own making.

  Q386  Mr Henderson: It seems an obvious question but I am not sure we have asked it. Before 16 November, if you had been asked as an adviser whether consent should ever be given for the search of a Member's office without a warrant, would you have advised yes or no? Now, would you give the same advice or have you formed a different view?

  Dr Jack: No, I would have advised that a warrant should be necessary in such a case and I would follow now the provisions of the Speaker's protocol which also requires a warrant in such a case.

  Q387  Sir Malcolm Rifkind: One final point, really just to give you an opportunity to comment because I do not have a strong view on this myself. Lord Martin of Springburn in his evidence was rather critical of the fact that in his view over the weekend of Saturday 29 and Sunday 30 November you had just one brief phone conversation and that you were not available because you had gone overseas. I simply want to give you an opportunity, if you so wish, to comment on that, whether that is a concern you share.

  Dr Jack: No, I am very happy to answer that. I went away on Friday evening when these events were over. I am always available on the weekend and I have had many weekend conversations relating to the business of the House.

  Q388  Chairman: May we come not to the Sealed Knot but the sealed bag? Ms Sharpe and Ms Daly, you were directly concerned in that. There was an occasion on 22 January 2009 when Kingsley Napley attended by agreement what was described as a preliminary sift. As a result of that some 20 documents were exempted. Can you tell us what criteria were used in order to carry out the sift?

  Ms Daly: First, there were three occasions on which we looked at material.

  Q389  Chairman: Can you tell us when these were?

  Ms Daly: Yes, on 22 January when we looked at hard copy material which had been taken from the office. On 30 March and on 2 April we looked at electronic material which had been downloaded. So there were three occasions when we inspected material taken from Damian Green's offices.

  Q390  Chairman: Were the criteria for carrying out the sift the same on all three of these occasions, both the hard copy and the electronic material?

  Ms Daly: Yes, they were.

  Q391  Chairman: What were these?

  Ms Daly: Before we were invited to look at the material, there were quite a lot of communications between both sides, the lawyers, the lawyers of the Metropolitan Police and Damian Green's lawyers. It was simply that we go in and look at what had been taken and form a preliminary view of whether we thought it was privileged.

  Q392  Chairman: Where was that material? Where was it being kept?

  Ms Daly: It was being kept in New Scotland Yard. It was all under seal because Mr Green's lawyers communicated to the police that he thought it was all privileged, therefore that they could not unseal the bags until this matter of privilege had been determined. This was why, having had the resolution of the House on 8 December, when it was said that this matter of privilege could not be considered in the House until the police investigation was over or any criminal proceedings, they said that perhaps officers of the House could come in and look at it and form some sort of preliminary view of what they thought about the material.

  Q393  Ann Coffey: What sort of material was it?

  Ms Daly: I am a solicitor and when we were doing this we were acting under duties of confidentiality to both sides.

  Q394  Chairman: We understand that but in general terms are we talking about correspondence?

  Ms Daly: As Mr Green said in evidence to the Committee in answer to Sir Malcolm's question, he did not think that a lot was privileged and it was evident that what he said was correct. It was a lot of personal material, personal correspondence, telephone bills, financial bills; it depended what material you were looking at. Electronic material had more political matters, like party whips saying "Be here at a certain time".

  Q395  Ann Coffey: Why would telephone bills be privileged?

  Ms Daly: I do not know. This was what we were told was privileged. In communications between both sources it became apparent that their concept of what was privileged was very different from what mine would have been.

  Q396  Ann Coffey: What is your concept of what is privileged?

  Ms Daly: It would have to be closely connected with proceedings in Parliament rather than simply something which was taken from the office of a Member.

  Q397  Ann Coffey: For example?

  Ms Daly: Something in preparation for a speech which a Member was going to give in Parliament.

  Q398  Ann Coffey: So a draft. If in my office there is a draft speech that I have crossed off and was arranging, that would be considered as privileged information.

  Ms Daly: Yes; exactly. We did identify other things which were privileged.

  Q399  Ann Coffey: It is very important to know what you think is privileged information.

  Ms Daly: I have to say that Jacqy Sharpe, being the Clerk of Journals, was the expert on what was privileged.

  Ms Sharpe: We certainly looked at things which there would have been little argument about them being privileged such as extracts from Hansard, written answers, written questions.



 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries index

© Parliamentary copyright 2010
Prepared 22 March 2010